The Price Of U.S. Power

THE HOUR

By Leonard Fein

Published February 28, 2003, issue of February 28, 2003.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Now comes the estimable Shimon Peres, Nobel peace laureate, erstwhile prime minister of the Third Jewish Commonwealth and principal developer of the intimate relationship between Israel and France during the 1950s — when France was Israel’s critical source of arms — and proposes that India replace France on the United Nations Security Council. In effect, Peres endorsed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s dismissal of France as part of “Old Europe.” “Why not,” Peres rhetorically asked at an appearance on February 20 before a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, “India, which represents much more of the 20th century?”

Well, it is now, of course, the 21st century, and there may be good arguments for a restructuring of the Security Council, but Peres knows quite well that his remark was intended to cause shock rather than to precipitate change. It came in the context of a tough critique of the positions Germany and France have taken on America’s policy toward Iraq.

Peres’s critique included, as well, a denunciation of the world-wide mass protests against the impending war. “Why,” Peres asserted — I say “asserted” rather than “asked” because his words were meant to end an argument, not to pose a question — “didn’t they demonstrate when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, or invaded Kuwait?… One must ask why was it right to bomb Kosovo… without the United Nations. Is [former Yugoslav president Slobodan] Milosevic more dangerous than Saddam Hussein?”

I have no information regarding how these remarks went over with the Presidents Conference, though if past is prologue, one can reliably imagine they were enthusiastically received. But they are unworthy of Peres and inadequate to the gravity demanded by the debate on whether to go to war against Iraq.

Why did masses of people not demonstrate against Saddam’s war with Iran? In some part, out of a version of racism: If Muslims want to kill each other, so be it. Mostly, though, the recent demonstrations were giving voice to a specific resentment against the only superpower throwing its weight and its bombs around. With unprecedented power comes unpleasant scrutiny — unpleasant, but not unwarranted. Power comes with a price.

And why was it “right” to bomb Kosovo even without authorization from the U.N.? Yes, the West is inevitably and understandably more exercised by offensive behavior within its borders than by such behavior elsewhere. Milosevic and Saddam — each dangerous enough, the one a clear and present danger not only to the Kosovars but also to the West’s self-respect, the other to his own people and perhaps one day to others. Still, since when have we only one prescription for very different diseases?

But all these arguments are secondary. What Peres, among others, fails to grasp is that some of us who oppose the impending war do so because we are persuaded that the rosy scenarios of a democratized Iraq setting a powerful example for the rest of the Arab world are almost surely fantasies, whereas one cannot dismiss the frightening predictions that a war against Iraq will likely ignite a world war between the West and Islam and almost certainly attract legions of new terrorists. How disgustingly ironic that the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that the administration has tried and failed to establish may be forged in the firestorm we ourselves are about to launch.

Some advocates of the war argue that just as “we” democratized Germany and Japan after World War II, we can and soon will democratize Iraq. That is sloppy analogizing: neither Germany nor Japan was linked to a vast worldwide population of hundreds of millions of co-religionists who will, unless the war is incredibly surgical, react with fury rather than with relief.

Dealing with the reality of terrorism remains the most pressing and the most awkward challenge to the United States and to the entire family of nations. One can surely understand if the president and his people vastly prefer an enemy with a face, a title and the capacity to surrender, to a faceless enemy who lives in the shadows everywhere. A war against Iraq will have a beginning and, one hopes, an end, even if its consequences ripple, or flood, onward and outward long after that ending. A war against terrorism has no proximate end point; in its current scale and its potential, terrorism is unprecedented and can at best be blunted, not defeated.

But the fear and frustration to which our own vulnerability to terrorism give rise are surely not adequate to justify an assault on Iraq. Such an assault must be assessed on its own terms, and that means its likely costs and its likely benefits must be weighed as best we can weigh them.

Israel has its own interests to protect — as do we — and one understands why Peres and most Israelis applaud President Bush’s course. But lives are here at stake and, as always, a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” The occasion calls for sobriety, not for applause-gleaning one-liners.

Leonard Fein’s most recent book is “Against the Dying of the Light: A Father’s Story of Love, Loss, and Hope” (Jewish Lights, 2001).






Find us on Facebook!
  • "Selma. Nearly 50 years ago it was violent Selma, impossibly racist Selma, site of Bloody Sunday, when peaceful civil rights marchers made their first attempt to cross the Pettus Street Bridge on the way to the state capitol in Montgomery, Alabama." http://jd.fo/r50mf With the 50th anniversary approaching next spring, a new coalition is bringing together blacks, Jews and others for progressive change.
  • Kosovo's centuries-old Jewish community is down to a few dozen. In a nation where the population is 90% Muslim, they are proud their past — and wonder why Israel won't recognize their state. http://jd.fo/h4wK0
  • Israelis are taking up the #IceBucketChallenge — with hummus.
  • In WWI, Jews fought for Britain. So why were they treated as outsiders?
  • According to a new poll, 75% of Israeli Jews oppose intermarriage.
  • Will Lubavitcher Rabbi Moshe Wiener be the next Met Council CEO?
  • Angelina Jolie changed everything — but not just for the better:
  • Prime Suspect? Prime Minister.
  • Move over Dr. Ruth — there’s a (not-so) new sassy Jewish sex-therapist in town. Her name is Shirley Zussman — and just turned 100 years old.
  • From kosher wine to Ecstasy, presenting some of our best bootlegs:
  • Sara Kramer is not the first New Yorker to feel the alluring pull of the West Coast — but she might be the first heading there with Turkish Urfa pepper and za’atar in her suitcase.
  • About 1 in 40 American Jews will get pancreatic cancer (Ruth Bader Ginsberg is one of the few survivors).
  • At which grade level should classroom discussions include topics like the death of civilians kidnapping of young Israelis and sirens warning of incoming rockets?
  • Wanted: Met Council CEO.
  • “Look, on the one hand, I understand him,” says Rivka Ben-Pazi, a niece of Elchanan Hameiri, the boy that Henk Zanoli saved. “He had a family tragedy.” But on the other hand, she said, “I think he was wrong.” What do you think?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.